HISTORY

Paper 2158/01
Paper 1


General comments

This year there was a noticeable increase in entry numbers for the summer paper. It is encouraging to report
that the work of many candidates -a rather higher proportion than in recent sessions - attained a good level
of achievement, touching degrees of excellence in some cases. Such candidates were furnished with
knowledge that was at once broad and precise, and they displayed an ability to angle their knowledge
sharply to the requirements of the question. Not all candidates achieved such quality in their work and their
less satisfactory work will often have been attributable to paucity of knowledge, or inexact knowledge, and to
weak deployment of it.

One feature that marginally impaired the work of some candidates was an overly developed introduction to
the set question. Such introductions sometimes ranged very broadly and had only loose relevance to the
question's immediate theme. Of course, introductions are desirable. But they should be brief, confined to a
sentence or so, and focused directly on the question. In questions that are divided into lettered parts, it is as
well for the candidate to engage with those parts as quickly as possible.

On a practical note linked to the above, it is helpful if candidates reproduce the lettered or numbered division
of a question in their answer so that it is clear to the Examiner where a particular part commences. Similarly,
at the end, it is best to leave a line blank before commencing the last, analytical part, and to indicate in the
opening words of the answer to that part that it is at that point that the last part commences.


Comments on specific questions

There were very few attempts at Questions 6, 9, 11, 14, l5(b), 21, 24, 25, 26, 30.

Question 1

Questions on post-war treaties are usually popular ones and Question 1 in this paper was no exception.
Knowledge of boundary changes in both the former empires was often well held, accurate and fully spread.
It was not necessary to write a lot about each area of boundary change and most candidates did not do so,
confining themselves here sensibly to the request for detail of changes and no more than that. Some
candidates dealt with the terms of the treaties in general and tended to waste effort by an approach that did
not focus sharply on boundaries. The fault carried over to an extent into the last part where assessment
focused on the unfairness of the treaties in general rather than the boundaries in particular.

Question 2

This question also was popular and often well attempted. Knowledge of the structure of the League was
often very thoroughly given, as also its work in improving living and working conditions, though that was
sometimes less fully covered. It was encouraging that in the last part very few indeed trespassed into the
1930s, but held the focus on the 1920s, adducing often well-balanced assessments of the success or
otherwise of the League's 1920s work in international crises.

Question 3

The question was focused on how Germany brought the three countries under its control. This was usually
held adequately in (a) and (b), but less so in (c). Answers on Poland too often diverted into the British and
French declarations of war, events which had minimal practical implication for the successful Nazi thrust into
Poland. In (a) there was a tendency to deal with 1934 in too great detail for mere background, while in (b)
the final conquest of the country in spring 1939 was neglected. The last part produced in some instances
some well put analyses of the political as well as the military vulnerability of France in 1940.
2158 History June 2008
1 UCLES 2008
Question 4

A degree of background - though not extensive - was often seen as a viable start to a narrative of the Korean
War. Knowledge of the ebb and flow of military events across the Korean peninsula was in many instances
sound and the United Nations, more than individual countries, brought usefully into that context. The mark
scheme urged some generosity on the slightly demanding last part, though a number of answers here got
beyond a basic political contrast to an indication of policies in action that led to border friction.

Question 5

The definition produced problems for only a very few number of candidates and the subsequent illustration of
detente in action was often developed with useful detail and balance. Negative points - e.g. Vietnam - were
sometimes introduced to emphasise that the ideal was not always held to and only rather few developed
Vietnam to a point where irrelevance was beginning to set in. The final part was in many cases well
developed from the earlier accounts, with references to changed attitudes in the early I980s.

Question 7

The first part was usually well attempted, candidates generally availing themselves of the opportunity to write
both on domestic and on foreign affairs in the Weimar years. There was a tendency at times for the focus to
shift from the 'policies' pursued during these years in favour of a general history of Weimar Germany, in
which policies almost inevitably emerged, though less sharply defined. For some there was a time factor
problem in the last part, with too much attention to Hitler's progress in the 1920s. Others got well into the
electoral and state politics that surrounded his appointment as chancellor and comparatively few went
beyond January 1933.

Question 8

German and Italian questions are usually the most popular in this section and in this examination the Italian
one was more popular than the German one. Parts (a) and (b) were usually well covered, though in (a)
general material marred some answers and in (b) anti-clerical opinion was sometimes placed with the early
fascist state, rather than with the early state of Italy in the late nineteenth century. Part (c) lacked detail and
rigour and was too generally addressed; no candidate made mention of the Balilla. While some responded
to the last part with a general assertion of dictatorship, others teased out various features of fascist Italy to
suggest a more balanced approach.

Question 10

Rather surprisingly, this was not a particularly popular question. Those who attempted it generally did well,
certainly recognising the significance of each in the overall context of the Second World War. Events were
often given weight over outcome, though some candidates dealt with both by producing effective and sound
knowledge. However, the last part failed to evoke adequately precise knowledge or useful assessment
based on it.

Question 12

Answers here were not numerous and were almost entirely disappointing. Focal areas in the first part might
have been the entry into the war, the Fourteen Points and Wilson's peace-keeping role. Yet few got to these
features and even fewer developed them with assurance. The last part was somewhat better attempted, and
there were some helpfully based counter arguments to the given theme.

Question 13

The strength of this answer lay, in almost all cases, with the legislative package that held the key to the
answer to the middle part. Knowledge here was in almost all cases broad and exact. The first part was too
often briefly dismissed, yet there exists a wide range of references that might be adduced to provide a full
answer here. The last part often had well based reasons for opposition -ranging across the political
spectrum - but might have been further enhanced by allusion to the political concerns of some of FDRs
opponents in the 1930s.

2158 History June 2008
2 UCLES 2008
Question 15(a)

It is not usual to find so marked a degree of popularity in the Latin American question, though Cuba is
usually more popular than most other areas. All aspects of the question were well recognised, even the Bay
of Pigs episode (which often gets confused with the Missile Crisis) being appropriately handled. There was
something of a dearth of knowledge on the precise policies followed by Castro in power, Batista's rule
sometimes evoking fuller references. While the last part was usually reasonably well handled, it was
surprising that the Missile Crisis in too many cases was neglected here.

Question 16

There were some good answers to this very broadly based question, covering three very different presidents.
The focus in the case of the first two was well held and while there might be marginally more material
relevant in this context for Nixon than for Carter, many did produce good foreign and domestic references to
help explain Carter's defeat. The concept of 'general popularity was usually well grasped for Reagan, many
expanding on his twin role as screen star and father figure.

Question 17

Here perhaps more than in any other question in the paper there was a strong temptation to develop much
background for (a). This was understandable and the better candidates limited this, while weaker ones went
back to 1905 and even the late nineteenth century. The question did require a specific 1917 focus and,
given the parameters of the syllabus it would have been inappropriate to expect knowledge above the level
of background knowledge on pre - 1917 events. A tendency with some was to narrate 1917 and allow
relevance to be found where it lay. Both (a) and (b) required a sharp, particular focus and this was not
always forthcoming. The last part was also somewhat disappointing, with neglect of the precise reasons for
intervention in favour of a wartime narrative.

Question 18

The quotation is so naturally linked to the work of Stalin in the 1930s that of itself it provided no difficulties.
Many had good knowledge on (a) and (b), though others were less secure and less well developed. In
handling five-year plans, while statistical data can have value and the objectives of particular plans can have
relevance, it is more important to get into the 'ethos' of the planned economy, indicating methods and
approaches. In the last part, trade was seen as a fairly natural development from the first part and others got
to the Nazi-Soviet pact, yet no one at all got to the popular front movement of the mid-thirties, a regrettable
omission.

Question 19

It was again surprising that, rather like the comparable Question 10, this also received few responses. It
was perhaps not so well done as Question 10, with balanced accounts across the given years being less
frequently found than concentration on particular events such as Stalingrad and Kursk. It is surprising that
the siege of Leningrad continues to be a comparatively neglected event in this context. Answers to the last
part were not very well supported though in most cases were developed quite purposefully from the
bitterness of the times.

Question 20

Rather as in answers to Question 18, both (a) and (b) could have been more fully developed than they were.
Most were able to indicate successes and failures in both areas, but the fundamental nature of Khrushchevs
policies eluded many. The last part was rather better undertaken, with some well supported assessment
offered.

Question 22

This was not a particularly popular question. As on other occasions when questions have been set on this
topic, knowledge was rather narrow. Part (a) does involve references to warfare as well as to policies, yet
neither was much in evidence. Part (b) requires a fuller description of domestic policies than was usually
forthcoming. Had (a) and (b) been thoroughly attempted, the analysis required in the last part should have
had a degree of liveliness about it. Yet only bland responses were forthcoming.

2158 History June 2008
3 UCLES 2008
Question 23

Answers varied a good deal in the degree of support that was forthcoming here, yet few mistook the wars
and all were aware of their basic significance. Some usefully buttressed their descriptions with useful
comment on the fitting of the wars into great-power politics. The last part needed in most cases to get
beyond the basic concept of a besieged land to such considerations as support, expertise, finance.

Question 27

A distinctly popular question and most who attempted it gave a viably orientated though not always sharply
supported answer. Some neglected to observe that the question's focus was on the Communist Party and
not on a history of China in general; the KMT, for example, had relevance only to the extent of its links,
friendly or otherwise, with the Communist Party. There was often a rather blurred area between the first and
second parts, with narrative and analysis of the 1940s running together and the latter approach not emerging
with sufficient strength.

Question 28

The rather few answers to this question were generally disappointing. Answers to the first part were
uninformed and often brief, with much potential missed; there seemed particular paucity on Japans advance
in the early 1940s. The last part received only weak answers, poorly argued and poorly referenced.

Question 29

While Gandhi, Jinnah and Mountbatten were quite well covered, Bose was often just not known and omitted.
He does play an important - almost unique - role in the 1940s, as a minority of candidates sometimes quite
graphically expressed. There was plenty to go for in the last part, and answers here were usually balanced
and reasonably informed.

Question 31

Answers were usually well informed in all areas. In (a) there was a tendency to go straight for collectivisation
rather than to consider the initial period of land seizures. But answers to (b) were generally secure, while
knowledge of Deng in both (c) and the last part was usually full. It would appear that knowledge of more
recent Chinese history is better held than knowledge of more recent Soviet history.
2158 History June 2008
4 UCLES 2008